This transcript is from a CSIS podcast published on January 9, 2025. Listen to the podcast here.
Quill Robinson: Welcome to Energy 360: The Transition a CSIS miniseries, exploring the energy implications of the 2024 election. I'm your host, Quill Robinson. Is the world on the brink of a nuclear energy renaissance? How will the incoming Trump administration approach this critical technology? This week, Jane Nakano senior fellow with the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at CSIS and I discussed the state of the U.S. nuclear energy industry and its future under the Trump administration with two top experts. Jeremy is the Chief Executive Officer of ClearPath and ClearPath Action, DC-based conservative clean energy organizations, advancing policies that accelerate innovations to reduce global energy emissions. Brad Plumer is a New York Times reporter based in Washington who covers the changing energy industry as well as policy and technology efforts to tackle global warming. Let's dive in.
Public perception of nuclear energy has shifted significantly over the past few years. 56% of Americans now favor more nuclear power and this is up by 10% from a decade ago. We've seen more than 30 countries sign a pledge to triple global nuclear power by 2050. We've also seen bipartisan nuclear bills pass through Congress like the Advanced Act and the Nuclear Fuel Security Act. Brad, can you talk to us a bit about what has driven this shift over the last few years and why nuclear is suddenly on the tip of everybody's tongue?
Brad Plumer: One interesting thing is you've seen support rise with both parties. Traditionally, Republicans have always been more favorable to nuclear power for a long time, and that's still the case, but we've seen Democratic support really rise. It's hard to know exactly, but I think one big thing we've seen is a lot of Democratic leaders, a lot of Democratic politicians have really come out in favor of nuclear. John Kerry is one of the best examples, like pretty anti-nuclear in the eighties as a senator fought against the reopening of the pilgrim nuclear power plant and as the international climate envoy under Biden would often say, we cannot solve climate change without nuclear power. I think that was an important signal. I think there's been a lot of bad publicity around closing nuclear power plants that has really mattered a lot. And the one thing I do wonder about is how stable that is. One thing is we haven't built a lot of nuclear power plants lately and it's easy to be supportive of a technology that doesn't exist, isn't causing problems, isn't having cost overruns and bad headlines. So it'll be interesting to see if that holds. But for now, I mean we've really seen both parties. Support has grown a lot and it's been really interesting.
Quill Robinson: Jeremy, there's definitely been a vibe shift over the last several years on nuclear energy, but how do we distinguish between signal and noise here and what signal should we be paying attention to pronouncements from the White House legislation moving in Congress, public opinion, what is important to pay attention to that would actually indicate the beginning of a real nuclear renaissance?
Jeremy Harrell: I think the nuclear surge is here to stay for a variety of different reasons. One, immense private sector momentum among entrepreneurs here in the United States bringing new reactors to the marketplace. We've seen a handful of new technologies break ground on their first of a kind projects and more start to lay the foundation for an order book that could lead to six reactors in the next 10 years or so. And so that's a significant driver.
Two, I think economic dynamics are a really important piece of the puzzle as well. The rising electricity demand that I think is here to stay as a result of investments in data centers, AI, American manufacturing and electrification in this country is only going to drive the need for more baseload clean power and nuclear is maybe the easiest way that we can build that at scale, at the pace that's needed if we can get over the hump there.
And then lastly, the geopolitical motivation I think is driving folks in both parties as well. The U.S. as a potential provider of this technology to meet the global pledge that you were talking about internationally. The competition with China and Russia and the desire for many across the globe to partner with folks like the United States to take charge of their energy future presents a huge opportunity and is why I think this momentum not only politically here in the U.S. but on the private sector side, is not only here to stay but is going to continue to accelerate.
Jane Nakano: I'm glad that Jeremy, you brought up the geopolitical sort of the global market competition piece because when we look at this tripling pledge in the context of global climate mitigation, the U.S. of course is one of the leading sort of a proponents, but countries like China, which has been building multiple reactors annually isn't part of it. So when we look at the global landscape, U.S. is no longer the dominant leader and Russia has been exporting the most. China is trying to really become the next sort of a leading supplier, but we're also facing competition from fellow OECD economies like France and South Korea. What are we doing sort of wrong? I mean, what more could we be doing for the United States to be staying in this competition and offer this technology that could really help both the energy security but then also decarbonization around the world?
Jeremy Harrell: I think we need to further use all the tools that we have in the tool belt here in the U.S. to promote our technologies abroad and really drive that global order book. The U.S. is never going to compete with China and Russia with the offerings like China and Russia does, which will be significant state owned investments. They'll build it, they'll effectively own it in many cases. They'll take the spent fuel and air waste along those lines. And there's a downside to that as well, particularly the Chinese then are controlling your energy system when you enter those partnerships. And so these agreements particularly globally, are a hundred year political partnerships. So I think it's why you're seeing many particularly Eastern European partners who see very clearly the threat from Russia and have been stressed economically as a result of the Russia, Ukraine war. They want to partner with someone who's reliable in this place and who allows them to take charge of their own energy sovereignty as a whole.
And so the U.S. can channel the resources of the key research and demonstration programs at the DOE use financing tools like the Development Finance Corporation and the Export Import Bank. Two things that are actually going to have to get reauthorized next Congress. So I think it's a bipartisan opportunity next year to accelerate those things and then just really lean into marketing these products abroad. The U.S. can truly be a partner that can catalyze a new generation of reactors and help countries build forward. The UAE is a great example, even though ultimately the UAE built at Baraka for South Korean reactors, the U.S. played a central role in setting up their regulatory entity like ENEC. And so that full offering of the U.S. government, both expertise and financing and technology, I think can really take off U.S. exports.
Brad Plumer: And I noticed this when I was in Baku for COP 29 last fall. More and more countries have this tremendous interest in nuclear power, and so there are countries like Turkey that have basically said, we want to build a whole lot more nuclear power plants. We're building wind, we're building solar, we're building everything we can, but electricity growth is so rapid that we need everything and it's a little up for grabs who they're going to work with. Right now they're working with Russia, they're willing to work with China, they'd be willing to work with the United States, but the U.S. has to show that it can deliver nuclear power, otherwise it's just not going to happen. So yeah, outside of eastern Europe where they're turning to the U.S. because there's nowhere else really to turn, the rest of the world is kind of up for grabs in terms of who they're going to look to.
Jane Nakano: I also certainly look at the eastern European city economies, obviously a very close partner to the U.S. in this endeavor, but how Russia's status may change or evolve in the next couple of years, how that may affect how different governments in Eastern Europe look at the option among the potential suppliers. But if I can just come back to the products, if you will, Jeremy, and of course Brad, does the U.S. nuclear industry have the right technologies to offer to the world? I mean there are all these different countries. Some are new to the nuclear, others are more of a mature economies that are used to generating electricity from nuclear. And within the U.S. we have large conventional scale reactors. Then we also have, I guess several dozen companies looking to commercialize SMRs. Some of the SMRs are advanced fuel types. Some of the SMRs are mobile lightwater reactor technology based. So what are we trying to offer to the world? I mean, do we have the right products for potential partners here?
Jeremy Harrell: The private sector momentum here is really exciting. And so what I would say is we're getting there. We're getting close, as Brad alluded to. It is time to put up or shut up for the industry as a whole. U.S. developers need to show that they can build projects on time and under a reasonable budget, that cost paradigm is a really important driver here, particularly not only in domestic deployment, but also as we offer globally. And we're starting to see significant progress there on a variety of different offerings. We do have multiple gigawatt scale offerings. The AP1000s, for example, Westinghouse design is operating in Georgia today, being marketed abroad, being built abroad, including by the Chinese for example. But in the advanced reactor space, I think really exciting developments here. And I think you're seeing a few key offerings that fit different niches and this global drive to significantly grow nuclear.
I think there are going to be products that can meet different countries needs or leading high temperature gas reactor under development here in the U.S. being developed by X energy, for example, both in Texas with Dow and in Washington state with Energy Northwest. It has some unique roles that could play with heavy manufacturing, processed heat applications, things along those lines. The Terra power reactor, for example, those has broken ground in Wyoming. It combines with a molten salt technology to provide more flexibility so that it can better assimilate into grids with higher renewable penetration and really sense opportunities. And designs like GI Hitachi small mod reactor for example, that is a lightwater design but is effectively a smaller simplified version first project being built in Canada with the support of the Canadian government, but multiple projects in the works here in the U.S. and in Eastern Europe, and then even leading micro reactor designs like Oklo for example, that could play roles in more remote communities. So what I think I'm most excited about this private sector momentum that's forward, and those are just a handful of companies. I have to reiterate, Kairos another exciting company that's out there, but there are different designs that meet different applications and the demand is so immense that I think the US is really in the forefront of offering products to the globe based off what they may need given the dynamics of their economic needs.
Quill Robinson: Brad, on that point, do we need to actually commercialize these technologies to be a credible leader and partner when it comes to nuclear? I remember at COP in Charmel Shake Egypt, we couldn't help but notice that Ross Adam was in the country building a nuclear reactor while we were all gathering there and talking about how developed countries could be a partner to emerging economies. Does that sort of parallel path as we were trying to figure out how to get or to revitalize our domestic nuclear industry, can that happen alongside us being a partner or do we need to make more progress domestically before we can be a credible partner abroad?
Brad Plumer: I would assume we need to build some of these reactors at home to sell abroad. Although NuScale is a company that they tried to build the first of their small light water reactors in Idaho to sell to Utah, and that project kind of fell apart, had a not ideal way of financing it, but they have this design that's approved and they have, they're building up the supply chain. They're looking to try to build abroad in places like Romania and elsewhere. So that will be interesting to see if they can sort of pioneer some of their first projects abroad rather than here in the us.
Jane Nakano: Do you think that a SMR will be future for the U.S. market, though, at least for the U.S. fleet from the capital market side as opposed to perhaps some of the larger ones could be still being built elsewhere?
Brad Plumer: The utilities I've talked to have increasingly expressed interest in both just because demand is growing so much. I mean, the big challenge with the big reactors is when there are only so many places you can put it, it's very hard to retire at 300 megawatt coal plant and then put in a huge one gigawatt coal plant. And then also given that so much of the country has deregulated its electricity system, it's pretty hard to see how we're going to get these big gigawatt scale reactors that could cost potentially $10 billion more through that sort of system as opposed to the vertically integrated utilities. But you talk to TVA, they are currently exploring building with Ontario power generation up in Canada, some of the smaller megawatt reactors, but they have said we have sites that we could put big ones, and electricity demand is growing fast, and it's something we may look at both for different purposes.
Jeremy Harrell: Five years ago, I would've told you SMRs is the only game in town, and I think rising electricity demand changes that dynamic. I think some of the gigawatt scale reactors could be appealing in particularly regulated markets where there's longer lead time for the regulatory process and the investments. Many states that are ready nuclear operating states, but then these advanced reactors and small reactors really fit both from a speed and a flexibility standpoint, the ability to have a smaller waste footprint, more flexibility to operate so that it can work with the grid as we've invested in new different types of technologies in different regions. And so I think there's room for many of these ships to rise. Absolutely, there's going to be an economic private sector down select that's going to happen here in the coming years. I think you're already starting to see that. I think one of the most exciting developments over the last two years has been new entrants as investors into nuclear. You're seeing Amazon make a direct investment, for example, in the X energy high temperature gas reactor that moved up the timeline of their second build in Washington state five years. Google's partnership with Kairos, for example, Oklo has entered into multiple different agreements with data companies to drive forward. So you're seeing not only those customers make commitments to buy the power, but some direct investment in the technology because they see the ability to scale 24/7 0 machine clean power as part of their long-term business interests.
Quill Robinson: Jeremy, I want to turn now to the incoming administration. As you mentioned, Republicans have long been supportive of nuclear. President Trump took a number of steps during his first administration that were quite supportive of the industry as well. Of course, the LPO under Trump's DOE was important in getting Vogel across the finish line. Now he's talked about drill, baby drill. He's talked about American energy dominance. On our first episode with Emily Domenech and Dave Banks. We posited that another mantra might be Build Baby Build for the incoming Trump administration. It seems that support for nuclear would be natural in this administration. At the same time, while regulations have been a barrier, financing has been a barrier to nuclear. Cheap natural gas is also a competitor for nuclear domestically. So, can you break this down for us? It seems like there's strong rhetorical and historical support among Republicans for nuclear, but how do you see this playing out over the next couple of years under the Trump administration?
Jeremy Harrell: I think certainly I don't speak for the Trump administration, but if you look at the 1.0 scenario, 2017 to 2020 significant focus here, and you alluded to some of these things, but their DOE launched the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program to commercialize the first of a kind Terra power and X energy project and the partnership with Kairos as well, for example, through companies that we've talked about. As you mentioned, LPO helped get Vogel to the finish line. Over the course of period of time, President Trump signed into law a tax incentive reform to 45 J the advanced nuclear tax credit to make it more available to do nuclear. They removed the DFC nuclear restriction development finance corporation restriction. So, you saw that administration from the domestic to the international side financing R&D to export ultimately support this technology. And I do think the immense challenge of meeting rising demand is going to mean that we need more of all of this. I totally agree with Dave and Emily. It's the build baby build everything, and you're going to see the country really putting resources and driving forward to build new gas, new geothermal, new renewables, new nuclear and new energy storage, and frankly, new grid infrastructure. We need more pipes, we need more transmission lines, and I think the Trump administration's regulatory modernization approach could really be beneficial and helping speed up the scale of this development.
Quill Robinson: What are some of the levers that they could pull in the first six months, in the first year that would be beneficial for the industry domestically?
Jeremy Harrell: Yeah, I think there are a few significant administrative things that they could lean into. How they deal with streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act, for example. They're going to kind of scrap the kind of new rule that the Biden administration had finalized. How they approach that is going to be a really important piece of the puzzle, how they lean into the regulatory commission to implement the Advance Act, the big bipartisan regulatory bill that was signed into law last year. If there is a vacancy at the Inner C, potentially who they appoint there to drive forward, we'll see if that comes about. Obviously one opening just recently filled and we'll see if the transition opens another area they need to move faster on the DOE nuclear fuel program. I think that would be one critique I have of the Biden administration. They moved far too slow in implementing the billions of dollars Congress gave them to drive that forward. They need to move more quickly on that so that we have the fuel for the reactors. So those are just a couple of things that I think out of day one on the regulatory side and in the investment side, they could do to help accelerate new nuclear in this country.
Quill Robinson: Brad, do you think that there will be bipartisan support for these efforts? You've detailed kind of the increasing bipartisanship around nuclear over the last several years, but when the rubber meets the road, are Democrats going to say that is a Trump priority we don't support? Or is this actually an opportunity for bipartisan leadership on energy security and climate?
Brad Plumer: Yeah, that would be interesting to watch. You could imagine a world where politics gets polarized around nuclear power, but I don't think you really saw it in the first Trump administration. I'd be skeptical if you saw a lot of that in this one. I mean, I think a lot of, not all, but a lot of Democrat politicians have really come around to the idea that we need to tackle climate change. We need clean energy. We need to solve it. We're not going to do it with wind and solar alone. We need other options. Nuclear looks like a really promising option. There just aren't that many other clean firm electricity sources out there. There may be fights here and there, but even something like the ADVANCE Act reforming the NRC — apart from the wing of the Democratic Party that was a little to the left, you really didn't see much opposition to that. So I'd be surprised if you saw a huge polarization, but I do feel like it's always a possibility.
Jane Nakano: What's your thought on the spent fuel issue, though? Could that be somewhat a point of some polarizing views?
Brad Plumer: I've been covering this a long time. The one thing about the spent fuel issue is it's pretty easy to just kick the can down the road. And if that's the easiest thing to do. I can imagine, them just continuing to do that
Jane Nakano: Earlier. My assumption was because President Obama did the Blue Ribbon Commission, and of course Mr. Biden was the vice president. So during the Biden administration, I thought there might be a lot sort of a more momentum to then pick up where they left. But that never happened quite, right. So yeah, I'm just sort of curious how it goes.
Jeremy Harrell: I have a lot of history in the spent fuel conversation. So when I worked in government, I worked in both the Nevada Congressional delegation, the site of the defunct Yucca Mountain Storage Project, and for members with the existing facilities operating in the district who are anxious to move that spent fuel. I actually believe the conversation is ripe over the next couple years on spent fuel management, and I think you're going to see a more comprehensive look towards it. The role advanced reactors can play in dealing with some of the spent fuel. So there are some of these designs. For example, Oklo is doing a project at Idaho National Lab. They can use spent fuel to tap more of that resource, and it will not only fuel their advanced reactor but also reduce the quantity of spent fuel. I think the conversation around recycling is very ripe. There's a lot of congressional interest in that space. And I think the rising demand and the kind of Russian nuclear fuel security conversation, how do we reduce our reliance on Russian nuclear fuel products? It lends credence to maybe significant more investments there. And then I think we've gotten, or it's time to get over that political hump on long-term storage in this country. For the last 15 years, it's been like, oh, when Harry Reed's no longer in office, then when the next new Nevada senator isn't in office, it's clear that it is a political problem that is insurmountable if we're going to solve this. And so how this administration goes in and tries to find and really invest in communities who might be willing to, it could be communities. It may not be one single large geologic site. And so I'm excited something that ClearPath is going to be focusing on in the next couple of years. I think now is the time to renew this conversation and find solutions.
Jane Nakano: Jeremy, just to be clear, when you say recycling, did you mean reprocessing? So, for example, during the past Republican administrations, we saw multilateral initiatives like GNEP. Are we likely to see much more percent of multilateral effort around reprocessing as well?
Jeremy Harrell: I think it's a potential. I think it's a potential.
Quill Robinson: It's January 2029. We have a new president coming in. I'm not going to speculate on who that's going to be. What milestones will the nuclear industry have hit over the next four years in a bullish scenario? Jeremy, I'll start with you.
Jeremy Harrell: I think we will see more than a gigawatt of new nuclear, if not placed into operation within 12 to 18 months of being placed into operation in the order book for two to three designs at the scale of five to eight more gigawatts, not only here in the United States, but globally.
Brad Plumer: I mean, there are some companies with very concrete milestones, right? TerraPower up in Wyoming, they've submitted their construction license application. The optimistic hope is that that can be reviewed and approved within two years. So by, what is that 2026, if we see that that's a real sign that the NRC is moving fast to approving these new reactor processes, they've really changed the way they do business. That would be a very bullish sign for nuclear if that application is still languishing. If other nuclear applications are still languishing, if we start seeing companies miss their milestones, I think up in Canada, I believe Ontario Power Generation wants to finish construction of its first small modular reactor by 2028. So if that's more or less on time, within some margin, that would be a very bullish sign for the industry. If it's still languishing and it's five years delay, that would be a pretty bad sign that the industry is really struggling to deliver. So the next four years are going to be interesting. We're going to see some real test cases for whether things are happening.
Quill Robinson: Certainly it'll be a critical time for the nuclear industry and we'll see how it all plays out. And be sure to stay in contact with both of you, Jeremy. Brad, thanks so much for joining the transition.
Brad Plumer: Thank you.
Jeremy Harrell: Thank you all.
Quill Robinson: Thanks so much for joining us on the transition. We'll see you next episode.
(END.)